1. POLITY AND CONSTITUTION
1.1. SE DI TI ON
Why in news?
Law commission of India has publicized a consultative paper for a comprehensive public discussion regarding
Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code 1860, which deals with sedition.
Understanding Sedition - Brief Introduction
• What is Sedition - As per Section 124A of IPC, Sedition is an act that brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise. As per this Section, a person is liable to be punished with imprisonment for life or imprisonment up to three years with fine.
• Concerns regarding Sedition – Relevance of this Section in a democratic and independent nation is a matter of continuous debate. Use of Section 124A by the government might go beyond the reasonable restrictions provided under fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression as per Article 19 of the Constitution. There is an apprehension that this Section might be misused by government of the day to suppress political dissent, constructive criticism of government and its policies thereby stifling democratic governance.
o The countries like UK, Australia have already abolished sedition laws considering them draconian.
Historical Background: Colonial Relic
• Origin and evolution - The legitimacy of British colonial governance system rested on silencing any kind of political dissent or dissatisfaction thus the right to freedom of speech and expression of individuals was suppressed through imposition of Section 124A. Section 124A IPC added through Special Act XVII of 1870, defined Sedition and 1898 amendment made it a punishable offense. Various leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, Bal Gangadhar Tilak have been punished under this.
• Post Constitutional Journey and Sedition vis-a-vis Article 19 of the Indian Constitution - Various verdicts by Indian Judiciary have led to re-interpretation and re-examination of ‘sedition’ in light of Article 19 of the Constitution in order to strike a balance between right to free speech and expression and power of State to impose reasonable restrictions (Article 19(2)). These verdicts have led to narrowing the ambit of ‘Sedition’ making its meaning more explicit, precise and unambiguous.
• Essential ingredients for a seditious act - Various verdicts in Romesh Thappar case, Kedar Nath Singh case, Kanahiya Kumar case re-defined a seditious act only if it had essential ingredients as:
o Disruption of public order
o Attempt to violently overthrow a lawful government
o Threatening the security of State or of public.
• Judicial verdicts in defense of Right to freedom of speech and expression - The judicial pronouncements in cases like AK Gopalan vs State of Madras, Ramesh Singh vs Union of India, Shreya Singhal vs State elaborated
‘what does not tantamount to sedition’:
o Political dissent
o A thought non-consonant with the government and its policies
o Expression of frustration over the state of affairs e.g. racist state or gender biased state
o Expressing different or conflicting ideas of Indian nation
o Right to offend
o Peaceful protest
Sedition vis-a-vis other Statutes
• Several sections of IPC deal with offenses against State as well as against public tranquility. Another act named
Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1971 has been enacted to prevent terrorist activities.
• Since sedition is an offense against the State, higher standards of proof must be applied to convict a person for this offense. It must be invoked for gravest of offenses against State. If the same doesn’t fall within the ambit of seditious act, it might attract provisions of some other laws/statutes as mentioned above.
Way Forward
• Dissent acts as a safety valve in a vibrant democracy and every restriction on free speech and liberty must be carefully imposed weighing its reasonableness.
• If the country is not open to positive criticism, there lies little difference between the pre- and post- independence eras
• Debates and discussion with respect to essential questions like need of sedition law in a modern democratic society vis-vis freedom of speech, redefining sedition etc. needs to be started among the legal luminaries, lawmakers, Government, NGOs, academia, students and above all, the general public.
1.2. PUNJ AB’S SA CR I LE GE L AW
Why in news?
Punjab cabinet has proposed to amend Section 295A of Indian Penal Code.
Provisions of the amendment
• It will introduce a new section 295AA in IPC.
• It proposes life imprisonment for whosoever cause injury, damage or sacrilege to four religious texts, that is the Guru Grant Sahib, the Quran, the Bhagwat Geeta and the Bible.
• Aims to promote social harmony and public order.
Criticism
• Punishment of life imprisonment is disproportionate. Further, already Section 295A of IPC exists which criminalizes 'deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings’. Under it, the scope of punishment is 3 years with or without fine.
• Sacrilege is vague which makes the law too vast and liable for misuse.
• Curbs freedom of speech. Also, there is a fear that we are increasingly becoming a society governed by criminal law taking away substance of our fundamental rights.
• The article defiles the sacredness of the Book because the status of the Book now becomes an artefact of state power. In other words, rather than being luminous, potent and transcendent texts, their status is now reduced to a section of the Indian Penal Code.
• Punjab’s sacrilege legislation is akin to Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, which have led to the ascendance of theocracy and religious violence in Pakistan. State interfering in the religious matters is inconsistent with idea of secular India.
Way forward
Supreme Court has upheld the Constitutional validity of section 295A in 1957 as an instrument to punish aggravated insults to religion, with the intention to ‘disrupt public order’ which is well within the purview of reasonable restrictions provided under Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution. Going beyond Section 295A can prove to be a double-edged sword. It needs comprehensive debate before it is amended.
1.1. SE DI TI ON
Why in news?
Law commission of India has publicized a consultative paper for a comprehensive public discussion regarding
Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code 1860, which deals with sedition.
Understanding Sedition - Brief Introduction
• What is Sedition - As per Section 124A of IPC, Sedition is an act that brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise. As per this Section, a person is liable to be punished with imprisonment for life or imprisonment up to three years with fine.
• Concerns regarding Sedition – Relevance of this Section in a democratic and independent nation is a matter of continuous debate. Use of Section 124A by the government might go beyond the reasonable restrictions provided under fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression as per Article 19 of the Constitution. There is an apprehension that this Section might be misused by government of the day to suppress political dissent, constructive criticism of government and its policies thereby stifling democratic governance.
o The countries like UK, Australia have already abolished sedition laws considering them draconian.
Historical Background: Colonial Relic
• Origin and evolution - The legitimacy of British colonial governance system rested on silencing any kind of political dissent or dissatisfaction thus the right to freedom of speech and expression of individuals was suppressed through imposition of Section 124A. Section 124A IPC added through Special Act XVII of 1870, defined Sedition and 1898 amendment made it a punishable offense. Various leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, Bal Gangadhar Tilak have been punished under this.
• Post Constitutional Journey and Sedition vis-a-vis Article 19 of the Indian Constitution - Various verdicts by Indian Judiciary have led to re-interpretation and re-examination of ‘sedition’ in light of Article 19 of the Constitution in order to strike a balance between right to free speech and expression and power of State to impose reasonable restrictions (Article 19(2)). These verdicts have led to narrowing the ambit of ‘Sedition’ making its meaning more explicit, precise and unambiguous.
• Essential ingredients for a seditious act - Various verdicts in Romesh Thappar case, Kedar Nath Singh case, Kanahiya Kumar case re-defined a seditious act only if it had essential ingredients as:
o Disruption of public order
o Attempt to violently overthrow a lawful government
o Threatening the security of State or of public.
• Judicial verdicts in defense of Right to freedom of speech and expression - The judicial pronouncements in cases like AK Gopalan vs State of Madras, Ramesh Singh vs Union of India, Shreya Singhal vs State elaborated
‘what does not tantamount to sedition’:
o Political dissent
o A thought non-consonant with the government and its policies
o Expression of frustration over the state of affairs e.g. racist state or gender biased state
o Expressing different or conflicting ideas of Indian nation
o Right to offend
o Peaceful protest
Sedition vis-a-vis other Statutes
• Several sections of IPC deal with offenses against State as well as against public tranquility. Another act named
Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1971 has been enacted to prevent terrorist activities.
• Since sedition is an offense against the State, higher standards of proof must be applied to convict a person for this offense. It must be invoked for gravest of offenses against State. If the same doesn’t fall within the ambit of seditious act, it might attract provisions of some other laws/statutes as mentioned above.
Way Forward
• Dissent acts as a safety valve in a vibrant democracy and every restriction on free speech and liberty must be carefully imposed weighing its reasonableness.
• If the country is not open to positive criticism, there lies little difference between the pre- and post- independence eras
• Debates and discussion with respect to essential questions like need of sedition law in a modern democratic society vis-vis freedom of speech, redefining sedition etc. needs to be started among the legal luminaries, lawmakers, Government, NGOs, academia, students and above all, the general public.
1.2. PUNJ AB’S SA CR I LE GE L AW
Why in news?
Punjab cabinet has proposed to amend Section 295A of Indian Penal Code.
Provisions of the amendment
• It will introduce a new section 295AA in IPC.
• It proposes life imprisonment for whosoever cause injury, damage or sacrilege to four religious texts, that is the Guru Grant Sahib, the Quran, the Bhagwat Geeta and the Bible.
• Aims to promote social harmony and public order.
Criticism
• Punishment of life imprisonment is disproportionate. Further, already Section 295A of IPC exists which criminalizes 'deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings’. Under it, the scope of punishment is 3 years with or without fine.
• Sacrilege is vague which makes the law too vast and liable for misuse.
• Curbs freedom of speech. Also, there is a fear that we are increasingly becoming a society governed by criminal law taking away substance of our fundamental rights.
• The article defiles the sacredness of the Book because the status of the Book now becomes an artefact of state power. In other words, rather than being luminous, potent and transcendent texts, their status is now reduced to a section of the Indian Penal Code.
• Punjab’s sacrilege legislation is akin to Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, which have led to the ascendance of theocracy and religious violence in Pakistan. State interfering in the religious matters is inconsistent with idea of secular India.
Way forward
Supreme Court has upheld the Constitutional validity of section 295A in 1957 as an instrument to punish aggravated insults to religion, with the intention to ‘disrupt public order’ which is well within the purview of reasonable restrictions provided under Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution. Going beyond Section 295A can prove to be a double-edged sword. It needs comprehensive debate before it is amended.
No comments:
Post a Comment